http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/11/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  715            1996 SCC  (1) 272  JT 1995 (8)   352        1995 SCALE  (6)648

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      By Order dated November 29, 1994, a Bench of this Court (P.B. Sawant,  S. Mohan,  JJ. and  one of  us,  B.P.  Jeevan Reddy, J.)  requested Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, former Judge of  this Court "to investigate into the conduct of the officials of the D.D.A. including its ex-officio Chairman at the relevant  time, in  handing over  the possession  of the suit-land  in  M/s.  Skipper  Construction  Pvt.Ltd.  before receiving the  auction amount  in full and also in conniving at the construction thereon as well as at the advertisements given by  it for  booking the  premises in  the building  in question." The  learned Judge  was also  asked to "look into the legality  and property of the order dt. 4.10.1988 passed by the  then ex-officio  Chairman  of  the  D.D.A.  and  the directions given  by the Central Government under Section 41 of the  Delhi Development  Authority Act."  The  context  in which the  said Order  was made is explained in the judgment dated January  25, 1995 rendered by the said Bench. Pursuant to the  said request,  Mr. Justice  Chinnappa Reddy  held an enquiry and  has submitted  his report  dated July  7, 1995. After receipt of the report, notice was given to the parties before us  to assist us in the matter of passing appropriate orders on  the basis  of the  said report. In particular, we requested Sri  Raju Ramachandran,  Advocate, to assist us in formulating the appropriate directions in the matter. Copies of the report were made available to all the learned counsel concerned herein. We heard them on November 17, 1995.      Paragraph 59  of the  Report contains  a summary of the conclusions arrived  at by  the learned Judge. So far as the period January,  1981  to  March,  1982  is  concerned,  the learned Judge  found Sri  S.C. Dikshit,  Director (C.L.) and Sri V.S.  Ailawadi, Vice-Chairman,  responsible for  several irregularities. The  learned Judge  stated that both of them sacrificed the  interest of  D.D.A. and went on recommending and granting  extensions for  which there  was absolutely no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

justification.  The  learned  Judge  also  found  that  such repeated extensions  were in  violation  of  the  terms  and conditions of  auction and  unauthorised  by  any  statutory power or  resolution of  the D.D.A.  So far  as  the  period March, 1982  to May,  1982 is  concerned, the  learned Judge found that  Sri K.S.Baidwan,  Secretary to the Lt. Governor, Sri V.S.  Ailawadi, Vice-Chairman  and  Sri  Virender  Nath, Commissioner   colluded    together    and    stalled    the implementation of  the order  of the  Lt. Governor, Sri S.L. Khurana  directing  cancellation  of  the  bid  and  thereby facilitated M/s.  Skipper Construction  Company to obtain an order of  stay from  the  Civil  Court.  The  learned  Judge further found  that though the D.D.A. did adopt a resolution as far back as May 14, 1984 accepting the recommendations of the Committee  (appointed  by  it)  devising  a  scheme  for recovering  the   balance  amount   due  from   Skipper   in instalments in view of the subsequent developments, Sri R.S. Sethi, Commissioner (Lands) designedly delayed the execution of the  agreement  thereby  enabling  Skipper  to  dupe  the innocent members  of the public by selling the same space in the proposed  building to  more than one person. The learned Judge also  found that  Sri Prem Kumar, Vice-Chairman, was a silent accessory  to the  role  played  by  Sri  Sethi.  The learned Judge  held that  the process  of  recovery  of  the balance bid  amount was  stalled in  the first  instance  by repeated extensions  granted by Sri Ailawadi and Sri Dikshit and next  by the  actions  of  S/Sri  Ailwadi,  Baidwan  and Virender Nath  which facilitated Skipper to obtain stay from the Court.  The learned  Judge  recorded  further  that  the process of  recovery was  stalled finally "by the turn about taken by  Sri H.L.  Kapur, Lt.  Governor and  Sri Om  Kumar, Vice-Chairman who  twisted the issue by linking the question of payment  with and  subjecting the same to the sanctioning of the  building plans  by the  order embodied in the letter dated October 14, 1988". The learned Judge characterised the action of  Sri H.L.Kapur  and Sri  Om Kumar  as unjustified, uncalled for  and in  violation of  the original  terms  and conditions of  auction as well as the stipulations contained in the  agreement, licence  deed and the bank guarantee. The said action  was found to be detrimental to the interests of the D.D.A.      Though not  mentioned in  the summary, we find that the learned Judge  has also  reported against  Sri  K.S.  Bains, Vice-Chairman in  the body  of the  Report. He has found him responsible for  the failure  to encash  the bank  guarantee furnished by  Skipper immediately,  atleast in regard to the payment of third and fourth instalments.      At the  same time,  however, we  must take  note  of  a particular  circumstance   mentioned  in   the  Report.   In February,  1982,   the  C.B.I.   had  received   information regarding alleged favours shown by the D.D.A. authorities to Skipper. They  prepared a  note and  forwarded it to the Lt. Governor, Sri  S.L. Khurana, for appropriate action. The Lt. Governor opined  that the  matter required  deeper probe and handed over  the case  to C.B.I.  for further  enquiries and necessary action.  His letter  was registered as a F.I.R. by the C.B.I.  against  Sri  V.S.Ailawadi,  Vice-Chairman,  Sri K.L.Bhatia, Commissioner (Lands), Sri S.C. Dikshit, Director (C.L.) and  Sri Jagdish  Chander, Programme  Supervisor. The C.B.I. examined several officers of D.D.A. during the course of investigations  and came  to the  conclusion finally that though there  were several  irregularities, no malafides can be attributed  to any  of the  said officers.  The file  was thereupon closed.  In its  Report, the  C.B.I. had also made certain recommendations including the following:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    "It  may   be  pointed   out  that   the      prevailing practice  in  the  D.D.A.  to      grant  frequent  extensions  to  private      parties to  enable them  to deposit  the      premium amount, appears to be arbitrary,      and chances  cannot be  ruled out,  when      the  private  parties  can  offer  heavy      amount as  illegal gratification  to the      persons in  Authority only to allow them      extension   against    the   terms   and      conditions of the auction sale. In order      to prevent  the scope of malpractice, it      is also  proposed that  the  DDA  should      either  delete  the  conditions  in  the      auction sale  notice whereby  time limit      is prescribed for depositing the balance      premium amount  within 90  days or  some      effective checks  should be  imposed  to      curb   the    practice   of    unlimited      discretion  for  allowing  extension  of      time by  the DDA officers to the private      parties.      It is necessary to point out that the enquiry by C.B.I. was confined to the period upto March, 1982 only.      On going through the Report of Justice Chinnappa Reddy, we find  that the  learned Judge  has taken  great pains and extreme care  in coming to the conclusions which he did. The conclusions arrived  at by the learned Judge are entitled to great weight  and constitute,  in  our  opinion,  sufficient basis  for   initiating  disciplinary   action  against  the officers concerned.  The Report  points out  how the several officers of  the  D.D.A.  flouted  the  orders  of  the  Lt. Governor, acted against the interest of D.D.A. and how they, by their  several acts,  helped  Skipper  in  achieving  its nefarious design to defraud both the D.D.A. and the innocent members of  the  public.  It  is  a  different  matter  that ultimately Skipper’s designs came to nought so far as D.D.A. is concerned  but that  was only  because  of  this  Court’s orders. So  far as  the members of the public are concerned, they lost  heavily because  they believed  in and acted upon the  several   advertisements  and   proclamations  made  by Skipper. The  members of  the public,  it appears, have lost more than Rs. 20 to 30 crores in the bargain. This could not have happened but for the active connivance and collusion of some of  the officers  of the D.D.a. The interest of justice demand that  the officers  found indulging  in such  acts be proceeded against  and dealt  with sternly  so that  it  may serve as  a lesson  to others.  A democratic Government does not mean  a lax  Government. The  rules of  procedure and/or principles of  natural justice  are not  meant to enable the guilty to  delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheels of justice  may appear to grind slowly but it is the duty of all of  us to  ensure that  they do grind steadily and grind well and  truely. The  justice system  cannot be  allowed to become soft,  supine and  spineless.  Hence,  the  following directions with respect to each of the officers concerned: (1) Sri  V.S. Ailawadi,  I.A.S.: We  are told  that  he  has retired recently  from the  post  of  Additional  Secretary, Ministry of  Welfare, Government  of India, on May 31, 1995. The  Government   of  India  (Department  of  Personnel)  is directed to  institute appropriate  disciplinary proceedings against  him   for  the   irregularities  and   illegalities committed by him as Vice-Chairman of the D.D.A. as borne out by the Report of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and the material gathered by  the learned  Judge in  his enquiry.  Since  Sri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Ailawadi has  retired from  service, it  is obvious that the proceedings taken  against him  will be directed against his pension and  other terminal  benefits in accordance with the rules. (2) Sri  K.S.Baidwan, I.A.S.: He is stated to be holding the post of  the Home  Secretary in  the Government  of National Capital Territory  of Delhi  at present. Disciplinary action shall be  taken against  him  by  the  Government  of  India (Department of  Personnel) for  imposing a major penalty for the irregularities  and illegalities  committed  by  him  as Secretary to  the  Lt.  Governor.  The  Report  of  and  the material  gathered  by  Justice  O.  Chinnappa  Reddy  shall constitute the basis for taking such action. (3) Sri  Virender nath,  I.A.S.: He  is stated to be holding the post of Commissioner and Secretary of Tourism and Mines, Government  of  Haryana,  Chandigarh  at  present.  For  the irregularities committed by him as the Commissioner (Lands), D.D.A.,  disciplinary   proceedings   for   imposing   major punishment shall  be taken  against him by the Government of India (Department  of Personnel).  The  Report  of  and  the material  gathered  by  Justice  O.  Chinnappa  Reddy  shall constitute the basis for taking such action. (4) Sri  R.S. Sethi,  I.A.S.: He is stated to be holding the post of  Joint Secretary  in the  Ministry of  Home Affairs, Government of India at present. In respect of irregularities committed  by  him  as  the  Commissioner  (Lands),  D.D.A., Government of  India (Department  of Personnel)  shall  take disciplinary proceedings  against him  for imposing  a major penalty. The  Report of and the material gathered by Justice O. Chinnappa  Reddy shall  constitute the  basis for  taking such action. (5) Sri  Om Kumar,  I.A.S.: He  is stated  to be holding the post of  Joint Secretary  (Ordinance)  in  the  Ministry  of Defence, Government  of India.  It is  brought to our notice that he  was brought  to the  D.D.A. as Vice-Chairman to set right the  mess which  the D.D.A.  had become under Sri Prem Kumar, Vice-Chairman.  We take note of the fact that by that time the matter relating to sale of the said plot to Skipper had become  sufficiently complicated. Having regard to these facts, we  direct that  disciplinary proceedings for a minor penalty be  taken by  the Government of India (Department of Personnel) against  him for  the irregularities committed by him as the Vice-Chairman of the D.D.A. The Report of and the material  gathered  by  Justice  O.  Chinnappa  Reddy  shall constitute the basis for taking such action. (6)  We  are  not  directing  any  disciplinary  proceedings against Sri S.C. Dikshit in view of the Report of the C.B.I. mentioned supra.  It may  be noticed that Sri S.C. Dikshit’s role is  referred to  by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy only for the period  upto March,  1982 and  the Report  of the C.B.I. covers this period. (7) It  is directed  that no  court or  authority  shall  be competent to  interdict  or  otherwise  interfere  with  the disciplinary or  other proceedings that may be taken against the  aforesaid  authorities  pursuant  to  this  Order.  Any further directions  necessary in  that behalf  can be sought for from  this Court.  The disciplinary proceedings shall be commenced within  three months  from this  date and shall be concluded within one year.      A copy  of the report of Sri Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy along with  a copy  of the evidence/material gathered by the learned Judge  shall be  sent to  the  Government  of  India (Department of  Personnel). The  cost of making copies shall be paid  by the  D.D.A. on  a bill  being  served  upon  its counsel.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    The Government of India (Department of Personnel) shall submit  a   report  of  the  progress  of  the  disciplinary proceedings at  intervals of  every  three  months  to  this Court.      A sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid by the D.D.A. to Sri Raju Ramachandran, Advocate, towards his fee in this matter.      Orders will  be separately  passed with  respect to the recommendations made  by Justice Chinnappa Reddy with regard to the working of the D.D.A.